Articles 57-2 (1) and (2), and 57-7 of the Public Official Election Act concerning the recommendation of candidates for the election of political parties, and where a political party conducts an intra-party competition and selects proportional representatives in accordance with the party constitution and party rules, the election of candidates and the validity of the candidate registration following the election (the validity in principle)

Article 47(2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that any political party shall comply with democratic procedures when recommending candidates for public elections. Article 57-2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that any political party may recommend candidates for public elections (hereinafter referred to as "party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party.

In addition to the contents, form, legislative intent, etc. of the Public Official Election Act, if the validity of the election of a specific candidate is denied due to a defect in the process of election of the candidate for proportional representative local council members within a political party, the result of partially replacing the candidate list of the relevant political party's proportional representative local council members and the result of changing the elector's political intent based on the candidate list of the political party and the already submitted and registered proportional representative local council members without being elected, and the reason for invalidation of election under the Public Official Election Act should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the language and text thereof. In full view of the above, if a political party conducts an intraparty competition and selects a candidate, then the political party should recommend the candidate through democratic procedures, the election of a candidate and the candidate registration accordingly cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances, such as where it can be evaluated that the election of a candidate is objectively unreasonable and reasonable to the extent that the essence of the general election principle is infringed.

Articles 47(2), 57-2(1) and (2), and 57-7 of the Public Official Election Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8 Decided October 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1859) Supreme Court Decision 2012Da59 Decided March 28, 2013 (Gong2013Sang, 768)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firmcheon, Attorneys Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 15, 2015

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

On June 4, 2014, the election of the defendant's proportional representative city council members in the 6th local election of Dong-si local council members is invalid.

1. The defendant's background of the election

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 11, and Eul evidence 1 to 7, respectively, and the purport of whole pleadings.

A. On June 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. filed an application with the New Democratic Union for the recommendation of candidates for the election of proportional representative City Council members of Daegu Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant election”), which is held on June 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant election”). The Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. prepared a written confirmation as to the criteria for determining the election of candidates for proportional representative City Council members of the Daegu Metropolitan City Daegu Metropolitan City (hereinafter “candidate selection voting”), prior to the voting to select candidates for proportional representative City Council members of the Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant voting”), and submitted it to the election commission of the Daegu Metropolitan City. The confirmation includes the fact that the ballot paper without the official seal of the chairman of the election commission of the

B. The candidate selection voting was held on May 13, 2014, and 365 electors participated, and as a result, in total, 70 pages where the official seal of the chairman of the Si/Gun/Gu election management was affixed at the voting place in 365 and the official seal was affixed, but in total 289 votes, the Defendant obtained the highest 114 votes and the Plaintiff obtained the next 111 votes, respectively, from among the remaining 289 votes except for those with other grounds for invalidation.

C. On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for reexamination to the Daegu Metropolitan City Recommendation Review Committee for Election of Public Officials (hereinafter “Review Committee”) to the effect that the Plaintiff’s ballot-counting witness prepared “written confirmation of voting result” without authorization without authorization and without authorization, and that the ballot paper reflects the elector’s intention accurately, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for reexamination to the effect that it should be judged as the valid votes of 70 copies of the voting paper without authorization of the chairman of the Si/Gun/Gu election management. On the same day, the Review Committee received the Plaintiff’s objection, but the decision of invalidation and invalidity of voting papers without the chairman of the Si/Gun/Gu election management commission is in accordance with the opinion of the highest committee of the new political democracy. Then, as a result of additional ballot counting of 70 ballot papers without the chairman of the Si/Gun/Gu election management commission, the Plaintiff’s highest votes number 141Da1358, the Plaintiff’s 1358, respectively, except for the remaining votes in which there is grounds for invalidation other than the omission.

D. However, on May 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the New Political Democratic Union rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination, thereby completing the registration of the candidate to the Daegu Metropolitan City Election Commission on May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “candidate List”) for the first candidate, the Defendant for the first candidate, and the second candidate for the second candidate, as the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, and completed the registration of the candidate at the Daegu Metropolitan City Election Commission.

E. After that, at the instant election conducted on June 4, 2014, the New Political Democratic Union marks 717,289, 244,233, 24,157, justice parties 29,120, and 11,024 were obtained respectively, and two seats were allocated to the New Political Association on June 5, 2014, and the Defendant, a first-class candidate of the New Political Democratic Union, was decided as the elected person.

F. Meanwhile, Article 109 of the Constitution of the New Political Democratic Union (hereinafter “New Political Democratic Union”) provides that the Review Committee shall, upon receiving an application for review, examine the application for review, decide whether to review it, and report the result thereof to the highest committee (Paragraph 3). The highest committee shall take appropriate measures, such as replacement of candidates, re-election, etc. where the decision of the Review Committee is deemed reasonable (Paragraph 4). Article 54 of the Regulations on Recommendation for Election of Public Officials (Rules 13 of the New Political Democratic Union) as delegated by Article 109(5) of the Constitution of the New

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. Even if the ballot paper is a ballot paper with no official seal of the chairman of the Si/Gun/Gu election management, where the ballot paper was issued by the Si/Gun/Gu election management commission by other data and where it is clearly confirmed that the electors cast a vote through lawful voting procedures, respect the will of the electors and treat it as an effective vote. It is invalid that the new political democracy association considers the defendant as a candidate for the first-order candidate in view of the above 70 voting paper with no official seal as invalid vote.

B. Therefore, since there is no first-class candidate in the list of candidates, the order of the list of candidates is in violation of Article 47(3) of the Public Official Election Act that requires recommendation of women, and it constitutes grounds for invalidation of candidate registration as provided by Article 52(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act, and the defendant recommended that the candidate did not select the first-class candidate in the election of candidates. Thus, in a case where a political party conducts intraparty competition, a candidate who is not elected as a candidate in the same constituency of the election is in violation of Article 57-2(2) of the Public Official Election Act that provides that the person who is not elected as a candidate in question shall not be registered as a candidate, and constitutes grounds for invalidation of candidate registration as provided by Article 52(1)8

3. Determination

A. Article 47(2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that any political party shall comply with democratic procedures when recommending candidates for public elections. Article 57-2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that any political party may recommend candidates for public elections (hereinafter referred to as "party competition"). Article 57-2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that any person who is not a candidate for the relevant political party, in principle, may not be registered as a candidate in the same constituency of the relevant election (Article 47(2)) where any political party conducts the intraparty competition. The purport of the provision is to provide that any person who is not a candidate for the relevant political party, as a matter of principle, shall not be elected as a candidate in the same constituency of the relevant election. In the event that any political party conducts the intraparty competition as a candidate while recommending any candidate for the intraparty competition, and to protect the result of the intraparty competition by recommending any person elected as a candidate and restricting any registration of any candidate for the intraparty competition that is not elected as a candidate, and that any recommendation of any political party shall be made in accordance with democratic procedures and methods.

In addition to the contents, form, legislative purport, etc. of the Public Official Election Act, if the validity of the election of a specific candidate is denied on the grounds of a defect in the election process of the candidate for proportional representative local council members within a political party, the result of partially replacing the candidate list of the relevant political party and the elector’s political intent made based on the candidate list of proportional representative local council members already submitted and registered is changed without going through the election. Thus, the reason for invalidation of election under the Public Official Election Act should be strictly interpreted in accordance with its language and text (see Supreme Court Order 2004Da8, Oct. 14, 2004, etc.). In light of the above, if a political party conducts the intraparty competition and selects a candidate pursuant to its constitution and party regulations, if the political party selects a candidate, the political party should recommend the candidate for the election through democratic procedure, and the candidate registration and its selection cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances such as the objective rationality and validity of the candidate selection can be evaluated to be considerably lost to the extent that it infringes the essence of the general election principle.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s registration of the first-class proportional representative candidate was made by a resolution of the highest committee with final decision authority in accordance with the party constitution and party regulations of the New Political Democratic Union relating to the procedures for the reexamination of the intraparty competition. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s highest committee resolution based on the contents of the criteria for determining the distribution and invalidation of ballot papers agreed before the election of the candidate cannot be deemed to have considerably lost the objective rationality and validity of Article 47(2) of the Public Official Election Act to the extent that the legislative intent of Article 47(2)

Therefore, the new political democracy recommended the defendant in the first order on the list of candidates for proportional representation according to the resolution of the highest committee, and the defendant's registration of proportional representation is valid, and there is no other evidence to deem that the defendant's registration of proportional representation constitutes a ground for nullification of registration under Article 52 (1) 2 and 8 of the Public Official Election Act.

C. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s registration of the first-class proportional representation is null and void is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)